Jump to content

Iraq is Burning


Recommended Posts

There....next.

 

That's funny.

we need to stick to the principle that involvement in war is justified only by major national security risks. that criteria would have kept us out of at least 2/3 of our most recent wars. i'm reminded of a military analyst i recently saw commenting on d- day. "soldiers are the currency of war", we need to think long and hard before spending that currency and it should never be a trade of one currency for another.

 

Weak minds spend too much time focusing on blame. We should think longer and harder about the currency after it's been spent. Regardless of why we were there, the falling of Iraq right now lands squarely on the president's shoulders as it was his specific decision to pull out against all the recommendations from people considerably smarter than him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 639
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's funny.

 

Weak minds spend too much time focusing on blame. We should think longer and harder about the currency after it's been spent. Regardless of why we were there, the falling of Iraq right now lands squarely on the president's shoulders as it was his specific decision to pull out against all the recommendations from people considerably smarter than him.

weaker minds are destined to relive history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's funny.

 

Weak minds spend too much time focusing on blame. We should think longer and harder about the currency after it's been spent. Regardless of why we were there, the falling of Iraq right now lands squarely on the president's shoulders as it was his specific decision to pull out against all the recommendations from people considerably smarter than him.

baloney, we couldnt afford to keep spending billions every year occupying it, with no end in sight. The mistake was destabilizing Syria, paving the way for Al Qaeda to set up shop on Syria's border with Iraq

Edited by Joe_the_6_pack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

we need to stick to the principle that involvement in war is justified only by major national security risks.

 

I agree with this principle. However, how do you determine a "major national security risk"?

 

I'm assuming 9/11 in your view, falls in this category.

 

So what could we have done before 9/11 to have prevented this?

 

What about the reasoning that many have, that if you create a void, it's possible that it gets filled by some characters who wish and intend to do harm to the US? Is this not a valid concern?

 

What ISIS is attempting to do is create an Islamic caliphate, don't you think this has risks to our US security interest through out the world and even possibly here?

 

So the question is, how do we determine what a major national security risk, and how do we go about it?

 

The mistake was destabilizing Syria, paving the way for Al Qaeda to set up shop on Syria's border with Iraq

 

Are you a retard or do you just pretend to be one?

 

No, what destabilized Syria were the actions of Assad and the ones he oppressed and gassed with chemical weapons that reacted ya nitwit

Edited by Magox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly Syria was not a national security risk. yet there we are providing weapons, training and support to "rebels". Would have been over long time ago had foreign powers, including US, stayed out. Now death toll approaching 200,000, millions of refugees, Al Qaeda using as springboard to invade Iraq ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly Syria was not a national security risk. yet there we are providing weapons, training and support to "rebels". Would have been over long time ago had foreign powers, including US, stayed out. Now death toll approaching 200,000, millions of refugees, Al Qaeda using as springboard to invade Iraq ....

 

Tell me...what would life be like today for all Syrians had we just stayed out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this principle. However, how do you determine a "major national security risk"?

 

I'm assuming 9/11 in your view, falls in this category.

 

So what could we have done before 9/11 to have prevented this?

 

What about the reasoning that many have, that if you create a void, it's possible that it gets filled by some characters who wish and intend to do harm to the US? Is this not a valid concern?

 

What ISIS is attempting to do is create an Islamic caliphate, don't you think this has risks to our US security interest through out the world and even possibly here?

 

So the question is, how do we determine what a major national security risk, and how do we go about it?

 

 

 

Are you a retard or do you just pretend to be one?

 

No, what destabilized Syria were the actions of Assad and the ones he oppressed and gassed with chemical weapons that reacted ya nitwit

9/11? iraq? they weren't related then and they aren't now despite over 1/2 the population believing that they were. how did that happen?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you a retard or do you just pretend to be one?

 

No, what destabilized Syria were the actions of Assad and the ones he oppressed and gassed with chemical weapons that reacted ya nitwit

 

But that's our fault. We're a bad, bad country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9/11? iraq? they weren't related then and they aren't now despite over 1/2 the population believing that they were. how did that happen?

 

Did you even read what I wrote?

 

Can you please attempt to substantively respond to the questions I posed.

Edited by Magox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

we need to stick to the principle that involvement in war is justified only by major national security risks. that criteria would have kept us out of at least 2/3 of our most recent wars. i'm reminded of a military analyst i recently saw commenting on d- day. "soldiers are the currency of war", we need to think long and hard before spending that currency and it should never be a trade of one currency for another.

 

We enbark on Trillion dollar "National Security" protection endeavors, and one of the biggest security risk is right in our own country- the border spaning from Texas to California.

 

Heres an idea- we don't start any wars until we figure out how to protect our southern border....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you even read what I wrote?

 

Can you please attempt to substantively respond to the questions I posed.

Did you even read what I wrote?

 

Can you please attempt to substantively respond to the questions I posed.

you linked the 2. power vacuums are ubiquitous throughout the globe. while they may represent a relative security threat, they can't reasonably preemptively be filled as we are witnessing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We enbark on Trillion dollar "National Security" protection endeavors, and one of the biggest security risk is right in our own country- the border spaning from Texas to California.

 

Heres an idea- we don't start any wars until we figure out how to protect our southern border....

RACIST!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

power vacuums are ubiquitous throughout the globe. while they may represent a relative security threat, they can't reasonably preemptively be filled as we are witnessing.

I think that answers it. In other words your foreign policy on this matter can fairly be characterized as - Create a vaccum and whatever happens, happens *fingers crossed* -

Edited by Magox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...